CAT/C/52/D/525/2012 4.4 The State party further emphasizes that the complainant did not lodge an appeal with the administrative chamber of the Court of Cassation against the Head of Government’s decision. It adds that the complainant’s argument to the effect that there are no remedies against the extradition order because it is an administrative act is incorrect. Provision is made in the Code of Administrative Courts14 for applications to set aside regulatory or individual decisions of the Head of Government on grounds of abuse of power. Moreover, there is significant practice in the area of appeals lodged with the administrative chamber of the Supreme Court (currently Court of Cassation) against decisions taken by the Prime Minister (currently Head of Government). The Head of Government’s decree accepting the Algerian State’s extradition request was effectively a “personal regulatory decision”, an administrative act subject to appeal before the administrative chamber of the Court of Cassation within 60 days of the date of notification of the decision. The State party explains that the complainant had ample opportunity to submit such an appeal between the notification of the extradition date and 15 November 2012. 4.5 The State party also contests the merits of the complaint with respect to the complainant’s allegations concerning possible ill-treatment in Algeria, the complainant’s country of origin. In this connection, it recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1996), on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22,15 which states that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The State party notes that these requirements have not been met in this case, the complainant himself having explicitly stated during his first appearance before the French judge that he agreed to travel to Algeria within two months as he had done nothing wrong. During this hearing, while accompanied by his lawyer, the complainant neither expressed fear of the Algerian justice system, nor mentioned any risk of torture.16 The State party considers that the statements made by the complainant before the French judge contradict those made before the public prosecutor in Tangiers on the day of his arrest, since it was only at that point that he mentioned the risk of torture. The State party therefore questions the credibility of the complainant’s allegations and considers them to be unfounded. While the complainant criticizes the State party for failing to consider his allegations, the State party notes, on the other hand, that the Court of Cassation’s judgement is clearly reasoned on this point and is based mainly on the complainant’s own statements before the French judge. 4.6 Lastly, the State party emphasizes that the complainant has failed to provide any evidence that the incriminating statements used in the extradition procedure were made under torture. It notes in this regard that his alleged accomplices, already in the hands of the Algerian justice system, were all assisted by their lawyers and did not claim to have been ill-treated during their arrest or interrogation. The defendant A.B., who implicated the complainant, had three of his lawyers with him during his appearance before the investigating judge, and there is no mention of torture during his interrogation in the case documents transmitted to the State party. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 With regard to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant maintains in his comments of 31 December 2013 that the application for revocation has no suspensive effect on the extradition decision. He claims that, according to the State party’s 14 15 16 6 Dahir No. 1.91-225 of 10 September 1993, enacting Act No. 41-90 on the creation of administrative courts, art. 9. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44), annex IX. The State party cites the record of the hearing, in which at no time is it noted that either the complainant or his lawyer expressed any fear about a risk of torture by the Algerian authorities. GE.14-05418